Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. In the next week, we're expecting a vote to convene a session of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, regarding allegations of bullying in the Welsh Government and whether or not this Assembly has been misled. You've denied that you received allegations of bullying specifically, but you also said that any issues raised with you were dealt with. If you didn't deal with issues of bullying, can you tell us what issues were dealt with and how you dealt with them? 

Yes. Well, Members will, I hope, understand that if I seem to choose my words carefully, or appear over lawyerly in my answers, it's not to be evasive; it's because these are extraordinary times, these are awful times. It's a moment in our political life that's full of hurt and anger. People are grieving and the last thing I want to do is to make matters worse. But I do understand the need for questions and scrutiny, and I have no difficulty with that. 

Let me set out as best I can what my explanation is for the perceived discrepancies, as people see them, between the answer in November 2014 and the answers I've subsequently given on the issues of bullying. I am aware of the comments that have been made in the press. All I can say about those comments is that, in relation to them, no specific accusation of bullying was ever presented to me, either formally or informally, no evidence was given to me, nor was that word 'bullying' ever used in that way. But if you want me to be clear about what the issues were, I can say people were sometimes unhappy with the way things happened. Were there competing priorities and complaints of that nature? Of course there were. Did people sometimes feel others were more favoured? Of course they did. That happens in any organisation. And in politics, where these matters are felt even more intensely than in most other places and people are very passionate about what they believe in, then that will be the situation. At the heart of our democracy is the notion of competition. There'll always be tension, and everyone in this Chamber will recognise that, particularly my fellow party leaders. I will continue to deal with those tensions in as fair a way as possible, and, regardless of our political differences in here, I hope that when people look at my political record they see somebody who has always tried to be fair. But I do reiterate the point and the offer I made over the past two weeks, that if people think there have been incidents of bullying, either historic or current, then my door is open. If they prefer not to approach me, they can, of course, approach the Permanent Secretary.   

First Minister, this is your opportunity to clarify the situation. It looks as though you've given two contradictory answers: you say that no allegations were received, but also that there were issues and that you did deal with them. I'll ask you again: what were the issues that were raised with you, and how did you deal with them? 

Well, sometimes, as I said, people were unhappy with the way things happened, people felt that others were more favoured, but that happens in any organisation. I dealt with them as and when they arose. When you're dealing with a Cabinet, you have people who are very talented, you have people who feel very strongly about what they are promoting, and, of course, it's hugely impossible to reconcile differences when they arise. If you ask me the question, 'Is it the case that Cabinets are always harmonious, where everybody agrees all the time?' No, and it would be unrealistic to say otherwise. When those issues arose, I dealt with them. 

You're not answering the question, First Minister, I'm afraid. There were specific allegations about bullying, which you have denied, yet you've said that there were issues and you did deal with them. Now, you haven't explained to us what those issues were, how they were dealt with or whether or not there were, for example, reports produced. Will you now give us the clarity that this Assembly deserves, explain to us what issues were raised with you back in 2014 and what exactly you did to deal with those issues? If they weren't issues of bullying, that's fair enough. What were they then? Please clarify this now. 

They were issues of competing priorities, of people feeling that some people were listened to more than others and people feeling that they want to see you as First Minister to explain their position. These are all normal processes of Cabinet and Government. It would be very odd if any Cabinet was in place where nobody ever disagreed. It would be very odd if a Cabinet was in place where people were in a position where they didn't feel that they wanted to make their views known in a particular way, and, as First Minister, that's the way that I always dealt with Government. If we look at what we did, as a Government, we delivered all our manifesto promises in the years up to 2016 and we are continuing to deliver them now. So, yes, there are always tensions in any Cabinet and surely any party leader will recognise that. What's hugely important is that those tensions don't get in the way of good governance, and they haven't got in the way of good governance, as the people of Wales have seen. 

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. 

First Minister, I'm grateful for the way that you've engaged with the questions so far this afternoon—a stark contrast to the way you engaged last Wednesday with the question that I put to you in the topical questions. But there is this issue where there are two narratives running here. There is the narrative that you acknowledge—and, again, I was grateful for your acknowledging that in First Minister's questions last week—that you did have issues raised with you back in November 2014, and you dealt with those issues. And then there is the issue of the written question that Darren Millar put down and the difference in the answer that said that there hadn't been any issues at that time. Now, can you understand how people can get confused by those two answers? Were issues of bullying raised specifically with you in October/November 2014, and did you deal with them?  

As I've already said—well, I'll just repeat what I said, just to make it clear again. I said I'm aware of the comments that have been made in the press. All I can say about those comments is that no specific allegation of bullying was ever presented to me in relation to those comments, either formally or informally. No evidence was given to me, nor was that word 'bullying' ever used in that way. I can't go beyond what I've said, once again, just to reiterate what I said earlier on. 

I'm still lacking an understanding of how difficult it is to answer this question. I've put it quite reasonably to you: were allegations of bullying put to you? Because that seems to be the assertion that has been put by two senior figures from your Government at the time—and others, I might add. It is not unreasonable for us to ask the questions of you as First Minister, because the accusations are levelled at your office and, indeed, your role as First Minister. And so, can you be crystal clear in confirming whether—and I don't particularly—? I appreciate you've got the written notes in front of you, but I think most people would remember if specific allegations around bullying were levelled and put to them to be dealt with. So, I'm just trying to get crystal clear in my own mind: were allegations related to bullying put to you in the time frame that has been identified by your former senior special adviser, and your former Cabinet Minister, Leighton Andrews?  

Well, I think I've just answered the question. There were no specific accusations of bullying. They were not presented to me formally or informally by them. The word was not even used in that way. I don't think I can go beyond the answer that I've given. 

Okay. There's going to be a motion tomorrow—next week, sorry—put before the Assembly to have an investigation into this. People will have listened to the answers you have given. I think the two opportunities I gave you were pretty straightforward—'Yes' or 'No' answers, as such. You chose not to give the 'Yes' or 'No' answer. Is it the case that you will be supporting the motion that will come before the Assembly next week to allow detailed scrutiny of this particular interest? There is huge public interest in this particular matter. There are conflicting stories and narratives running here. It is not unreasonable to want to get to the bottom of this, and if we can't get to the bottom of it in this particular institution, then what on earth is the point of this institution? So, can I ask you, First Minister: will you be supporting that motion that comes before the Assembly next Wednesday? 

There are a number of ways in which this issue can be dealt with. We reserve our position in terms of the vote next week until we've studied carefully, of course, the breadth of the terms of reference of that motion. But nevertheless, I do accept that this is an issue that will need further scrutiny. I'm not afraid of that scrutiny, and I think it's a question of finding out what is the most effective way of that scrutiny being exercised, and that is something I'm not afraid of. 

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I hope that the First Minister will feel that he owes the Assembly a duty of candour on this issue, but clearly we're going to get no further on it today and we'll have to wait for the debate next week to see whether we can make progress, so I would like to turn to another issue.

The First Minister said recently that he would like to see air passenger duty devolved to Wales so that he could abolish it for long-haul flights, and I welcome the First Minister to the ranks of tax cutters and tax abolishers in the Assembly. It makes a change from all the other taxes that he wants to introduce. But this is, of course, in a way a form of tax avoidance that he's in favour of, because it will give Welsh airports a small but significant advantage over airports on the other side of the border in England that will still have air passenger duty applying to them. So, can the First Minister explain to me how it is that he can reconcile his views on air passenger duty with his other views that the tax system should not be used for tax competition within the United Kingdom or, indeed, with other countries? 

Because there already is tax competition. Scotland already controls air passenger duty and there is an element of devolution of air passenger duty in Northern Ireland. It does not make sense to me, then, that Wales is denied the same advantages as those elsewhere in the UK. We've presented evidence to the UK Government that makes it clear that this is no threat to Bristol; we don't see it that way. This is about developing in particular long-haul flights from Cardiff, and we believe Cardiff is in a very good position to be able to do that and, by dint of that, developing other airports, regional airports around Wales, that are able to link in to Cardiff as a hub. The UK Government have dismissed, we understand, that evidence without ever offering any evidence of their own.

I hope the First Minister doesn't misunderstand me. I'm strongly in favour of what he proposes and very much in favour of the devolution of taxes to Wales so that we can cut them or abolish them and then give us an advantage over other parts of the United Kingdom, which compensates for the historical disadvantages that we have to fight against.

What I am interested in here are the inconsistencies in the Labour Party's positions generally. The purpose of air passenger duty, when it was introduced, was to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore abolishing it doesn't really seem to fit in with the other enthusiasms of the Labour Party in relation to the protection of the environment. So, how does the abolition of air passenger duty on long haul flights—how can it be reconciled with the Labour Party's views on green energy and the need to cut carbon emissions? 

It's quite simple. There are many, many people, not just from south Wales but from the south-west of England, who are presently travelling to Heathrow to fly on long-haul flights. If they travel a shorter distance, their own carbon footprint is lower. So, it does make sense then to put people in a position where they're not driving so far, where they are not increasing their own carbon footprint by giving them the option of being able to fly closer to home.

The First Minister knows that's pure sophistry. There is another aspect to this as well that's worth consideration, because he will have seen that Monsieur Barnier, in his latest pronunciamento about Britain's future trading relationships with Europe, said a couple of days ago:

'There will be no ambitious partnership without common ground in fair competition, state aid, tax dumping'.

Well, of course, tax dumping is the way that French politicians in particular refer to tax competition between nations, and they're very much against it. The whole trend of the European Union is to harmonise taxes so that there is no possibility of doing what the Irish have done in relation to corporation tax, giving them a significant advantage, which has been of great benefit to their economy.

So, does the First Minister not see that leaving the EU does give us the freedoms that we in Wales could use, if we use them imaginatively, to increase the output of the Welsh economy and the tax base and therefore provide the Welsh Government with more money to provide the other good public services that we want?

Well, that is a naive approach because, as he knows full well, if we are looking to export to markets and those markets feel that we have unfair tax competition they will impose tariffs against us. So, it's not as if the UK has a free hand in all of this. The UK is a medium-sized country, and it's not in a position of dictating terms of trade to others.

I refer him to what Aston Martin said only last week—that a hard Brexit would cause them to stop manufacturing cars. Now, these are not my words; these are words of a company that will soon be a significant employer in Wales, and I suspect we'll see more of that, which is why we need to understand where the UK Government is and we need to see the UK Government's plan and that needs to be soon, because if we're not in a position, I believe, where businesses can see that there is a way forward by the new year, then we will start seeing, I fear, announcements that will be negative as far as the economy of Britain is concerned.